ATTACK ON ALASKAN ANIMALS.
SHALL A GOOD GAME LAW BE REPEALED?
Senator Dillingham's Bill a Measure Calcu­lated to Exterminate all the Wild Ani­mals of Alaska in about Five Years.
Misled by Alaskans who either do not know much about game conditions in Alaska, or know­ing. do not care, Senator Dillingham has intro­duced in the United States Senate a bill which wipes out the excellent protective law passed two years ago, and practically throws the haunts of all Alaskan big game wide open to resident killers of all classes.
Senate Bill No. 4166 repeals the whole of the existing game laws in force in Alaska, and sub­stitutes quasi protection for deer, moose and caribou which is so flimsy that its effect will be to place all Alaskan game wholly at the mercy of the residents of Alaska. The only restriction it proposes is that the hides, heads and meat of the three species mentioned above can not be shipped out of Alaska, except under a license costing bona fide residents$25.00 and non-residents $250.00 for two moose, deer and caribou. Any person living in Alaska may slaughter at will, in season and out of season, any or all of the quadrupeds, birds or fishes now remaining, until the last species is exterminated.
By the sportsmen and naturalists of the eastern United States, who desire the proper preserva­tion of the wild life of Alaska, Mr. Dillingham’s measure is considered outrageous, and is being opposed accordingly. The special advocates of Mr. Dillingham’s bill areLieutenant G. T. Emmons, of the United States Navy; M. L. Wash­burn, Superintendent of the Northern Commer­cial Company; Judge Charles S. Johnson, of Nome ; D. A. McKenzie and D. H. Jarvis. By these gentlemen the cry is raised that the present game law is a great hardship to the residents of Alaska, in general, and to the natives, in partic­ular. They assert that thus far the greatest destruction of game in Alaska has been at the hands of non-residents, who desire heads and antlers as trophies, or who wish to export skins and hides. It is even stated that the Indians kill game sparingly, whereas it is a well-known fact that when unrestrained, the Indians of Alaska destroy their own food supply of wild game in a manner that is almost beyond belief.
The following letter bearing upon this point has been forwarded to the President and to the Senate Committee on Territories:
317 West 56th Street,
New York City, Feb. 27, 1904.
. Madison Grant, Esq.,
Dear Sir:—In answer to your request I am writing to you a few details about the destruction of game in Alaska by the natives.
It seems that all the Indians have an over- whe.ming desire to destroy animal life, no matter what the nature of the animal is, be it either fish, flesh or fowl.
Whenever we were camped near a salmon stream, and my men wanted some amusement, they would gaff quantities of salmon and throw them upon the bank to die. When I remonstrated they simply answered, “ There are plenty more left/
While after mountain goats I met a party of three adult and two young Indians who were packing up portions of the carcasses of 16 goats that two of them had killed that morning. They had, however, killed more than 16 as I counted eighteen carcasses myself that I actually found. In a pile among some granite boulders I found three dead goats that were untouched, with the exception of one hind quarter that had been cut off.
The following day I found several more car­casses about a mile further on, that had been killed some time before, as they were much de­composed. These were killed in August, or even July.
While hunting on Admiralty Island I found the carcasses of several deer that had been killed and left untouched ; and it was always difficult to keep my men from shooting them whenever they saw them.
One Indian was sent to get one deer for some miners. In about two hours he came back with a deer slung over his shoulders, and said he had five more, mostly fawns and does, upon the mountainside. These could not possibly be used, as the weather was very warm. Another Indian whom I met in Yankee Cove wanted to join my party, and as a recommendation told me he had killed 54 caribou in one morning.
The moose, too, share in the same wasteful slaughter, and it is a singular fact that the larger he is and the finer his horns, the more pleasure they find in destroying him.
Another thing 1 would like to speak of is the destruction of caribou for the soldiers at such places as Ft. Eagle, and the posts along the Yukon. There the U. S. Government hires men to slaughter them by the hundred. One man I heard, and on very good authority, killed 1*29 animals in one day. Now it seems that this slaughtering might be done away with, as plenty of food can be brought there by steamer by way of the Yukon River and the White Horse R. R.
As I told you, I am going back to Alaska this summer, ana I will try to get the names of any people, Indians or Whites, whom I find killing animals needlessly.
Gouverneur Morris Phelps,
Apparently it is unknown to Messrs. Emmons, Johnson, Washburn, McKenzie and Jarvis that the Alaskan Game Law now in force permits the killing of wild animals for food by natives, explorers, miners, and travelers. In fact, its chief purpose is to prevent the extermination of the moose, caribou, mountain sheep and deer in a wholesale manner, and in brief time, for com­mercial purposes. The law does indeed prohibit the sale of fresh meat, hides and heads of the valuable animals mentioned above ; but a man who is in need of wild game food may kill it and consume it. In view of this, the present law works no hardship to the natives, nor to explorers, miners or overland travelers, actually in need of food. As usual, however, there are in Alaska, as elsewhere, men who oppose all game laws, who wish to kill without limit, who wish to realize the utmost profit by the sale of game, who would place caribou and moose on a level with pork in the mining camps, and who care not how soon all the big game of Alaska is exterminated. With such men, the true sportsmen, naturalists and lovers of wild life in this country are per­petually at war. The Dillingham bill is being strongly opposed by the New York Zoological Society, the Boone and Crockett Club, the League of American Sportsmen, the Camp-Fire Club, and kindred organizations. The Biological Survey of the Department of Agriculture is being urged to use all possible influence for the preservation of the existing game laws which are being administered through that Bureau.
Regarding the dangers threatening the wild life of Alaska, Mr. J. Alden Loring, formerly Field Agent of the New York Zoological Society in Alaska, has written the following letter, copies of which have been sent to the President and to the Senate Committee on Territories, which has before it the Dillingham bill:
Owego, N. Y., March 17, 1904. Mr. Madison Grant,
New York, N. Y,
Dear SIR:—In reply to your inquiry regarding the attitude of the natives of Alaska toward ame. as observed by me, and reported to me y reliable parties, 1 will say :
Game is being ruthlessly slaughtered by the inhabitants of Alaska. While on a trip to the Cook Inlet country of Alaska in the summer of 1901, I came near getting into trouble with my three Indians because I refused to allow them to shoot everything they saw. They claimed than they could not live on beans, rice, flour, bacot and coffee, but must have fresh meat; and they wanted meat to take back to their hungry families.
When we were about to leave the mountains, we came upon two yearling moose. I shot one and the Indians killed the other. No sooner had the animals fallen than my guide informed me that the Indians objected to packing the meat (piece by piece) a quarter mile over a level (but marshy) country to our boat. And these were the Indians who for weeks had begged me to allow them to kill meat for their hungry families! It is needless to say that after I gave them a dressing down all of the meat was saved.
A few days later a large bull moose was seen near camp. Although we had all the meat we could possibly carry, the Indians were anxious to
?;o after it. That same afternoon another bull orded the Knik River near us, and again the Indians would have killed it had I not interfered.
One of these Indians admitted that he had killed five moose the winter before, and had saved the meat of but one. When asked why he did not take the others, he replied that they “ were bulls, and tough.”
During the summer of 1889 one Indian killed fifty moose back of Tyonek. The North Ameri­can Company’s agent at Knik, gave the Indians an order for twenty-four head skins, from moose, and on a single windy day the order was filled, and little of the meat was saved.
My guide, Mr. H. H. Hicks whom I found, perfectly reliable, told me that the Indians were wanton destroyers of game, and Mr. J. L. Davis, of Kodiak, informed me that the natives at Afognak Island, and the adjoining main land, were in the habit of killing bear during a season when their skins were worthless, simply saving the intestines which are used to make waterproof garments.
I spent three days hunting on Admiralty Island where deer were once abundant. During our stay but one of our party of six saw a deer. I found a few tracks along the sandy beach and in the opens, but they appeared to be less common than I have found them in the Adirondacks.
Game laws or no game laws, the Cook Inlet Indians will have the same hardship-starvation story to tell every winter. It is the perpetual cry of the entire north land, from the western border of the plains to the Pacific coast, and this in a country where both large and small game mav be haa in abundance.
When I was in Alaska there was no ga?ne lawy but still I heard the hungry story from the time that I landed at Tyonek until I left the country. While none of the natives were in a state of actual starvation, they claimed to be in want of provisions and were constantly begging of me; yet whenever I took trips through the timber within three miles of the village, I found snow- shoe rabbits and Spruce grouse common. At Knik village, some eighty miles northeast, I heard the same stories, yet back of this place is where my Indian killed his five moose not four months before, and saved the meat of but one. Moose in abundance were to be found within fifteen miles of this village, yet the inhabitants were too lazy to go for them.
Of course it is harder to hunt in winter than in summer or fall, but there is really no need of an Indian stirring further from his cabin than is necessary to secure wood and water. If he chose, during the summer and fall he could lay in dried berries, dried or smoked fish, and moose, caribou or sheep meat enough to feed his entire family for a year, regardless of its size.
At Knik I saw the dogs patrolling the beach and mud flats at low tide, catching the fish that had been stranded or washed ashore, while their owners lay about their cabins, and begged credit from the traders.
I leave it to any fair-minded person if there is any excuse for anyone going hungry in a country where berries are abundant in summer, and where from the first of July until the middle of September, the salmon run up the streams in such numbers that fishermen are often obliged to release part of their catch before they can haul their seine ashore. Even the bears glut themselves to such an extent that they choose what to them is the choicest parts, eating only the head and belly. Candle nsh (small fish so fat that when dried they will burn) are so abundant that I have walked along the beach and picked up scores of them as they were washed up by the waves. My guide told me that he knew of places where at certain times of the year he could scoop up half a bucket full at a time.
At Skagway I saw both Indians and whites paddling about the bay through schools of fish (herring I think they were) and capturing them by means of long poles, having a row of sharp nails driven through one end at intervals of an inch or more. This pole was thrust into the wa­ter by a man seated in the bow of the boat, and by a sweeping motion it was drawn through the school of fish, which were so abundaht that each time from one to six aad eight were impaled on the spines and flipped into the boat. I saw bush­els of fish captured in this way. The water was black with them, and they scarcely moved when the steamers came in to the docks.
Lack of foresight and lack of energy are usu­ally responsible for the hardships endured by Indians. An Indian does not hunt because it is a pleasure. It is his way of working, his way of earning his living, and so long as there is meat in camp, so long will he postpone his labor. Even after it has been consumed, he does not attempt to replenish his larder until the pangs of hunger demand it. Then he starts out, and his family fast until his return. If perchance he is unsuc­cessful for a few days, or is further delayed by accident or storms, as is often the case, the period of hardship for those dependent on him is prolonged. Once he is among the game he does not hesitate to slaughter everything that he can, then he returns home with the choicest parts, and feasts until again compelled to hunt.
As summer draws near, you will hear him say : “ I am not going to be hungry next winter. Wait until the 4 salmon run/ I am going to kill aud dry fish enough to keep my family in food until the next season.” Poor fellow! He means it, but after 44 the salmon come ” and he has had his fill, he becomes lazy, forgets hunger, and next winter brings its same starvation story.
The stories of lack of food are seldom heard at the missions, where the influence of the mission­aries is felt, but from the Indians beyond their reach. The 44mission Indians” as a rule are in­dustrious. They freight for the whites, fish or work at the canneries, and lay by a winter’s sup­ply of dried meat and fish for themselves.
So I say that if the Alaska natives will dry an abundance of berries and fish, as soon as the sea­son opens, and in the fall dry the meat of the large game animals, which the law allows each man to kill, they will have food in plenty, and it will not take a man and his wife more than two weeks to do it, either. Then if they will put in part of the summer and fall trapping furs, mak­ing 44 eucla ” (dried fish for dog food, which is shipped north by the commercial companies) or fish tor or work at the canneries, the income will easily supply them with clothing and necessities. This applies to the Indians living along the Pa­cific, and within a belt one hundred miles wide from the coast, between Wrangel and the head of Cook Inlet.
From these remarks you must not‘think that I am attempting to prove that the natives are the only destroyers of animal life in Alaska. The miners and prospectors are better hunters and better shots than the Indians, and the havoc they can do is appalling. I could enumerate many in­stances where moose, and deer have been slaught­ered by them, but have spoken of Indians only, because an attempt is being made to prove that they do not kill wantonly, and that the present game laws are to blame for their going hungrv.
Respectfully,
J. Alden Loring.
In view of the lamentable destruction of wildlife that has taken place in the United States during recent years, it is surprising that the lessons of the past are yet to be learned by a large number of Americans. That men like Lieutenant Em­mons and Judge Johnson, of Nome, who have lived in Alaska, can openly and unblushingly advocate the passage of such a measure as the Dillingham bill, is enough to disappoint, even if not to discourage, the most ardent game protect, ionist; but, like John Paul Jones, when the surrender of the Bon Homme Richard was de­manded, the men who are opposing the Dilling­ham bill declare that they have 4,not yet begun to fight! ” The New York Zoological Society, in particular, is determined that in Alaska, the last stronghold of big game owned by the United States Government wherein hunting is possible the big game must and shall be protected. The Secretary of Agriculture is being urged to put forth all possible effort in the enforcement of the existing Game Law, on the basis which ho has hitherto pursued.
Boone and Crockett Club Records (Mss 738), Archives and Special Collections. Maureen and Mike Mansfield Library. University of Montana-Missoula.

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

A newspaper article written by J. Alden Loring titled ""Attack On Alaskan Animals"" concerning Alaskan game laws and the extermination of animals in Alaska.

Creator

Loring, Alden

Genre (Short List)

letters

Genre (AAT)

letters (correspondence)

Type

Text

Language

eng

Date Original

1904-03-17

Subject (LCSH)

Wildlife management--Alaska; Game laws--Alaska

Rights Management

Materials in this collection are made available for personal, non-commercial, and educational use. For permission or questions about use of this material please contact Archives and Special Collections at the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Library at the University of Montana--Missoula.

For additional information about the collections held by the Archives and Special Collections at the University of Montana--Missoula, please visit the web site: http://www.lib.umt.edu/asc. You may also contact us by email: library.archives@umontana.edu.

Transcript

ATTACK ON ALASKAN ANIMALS.
SHALL A GOOD GAME LAW BE REPEALED?
Senator Dillingham's Bill a Measure Calcu­lated to Exterminate all the Wild Ani­mals of Alaska in about Five Years.
Misled by Alaskans who either do not know much about game conditions in Alaska, or know­ing. do not care, Senator Dillingham has intro­duced in the United States Senate a bill which wipes out the excellent protective law passed two years ago, and practically throws the haunts of all Alaskan big game wide open to resident killers of all classes.
Senate Bill No. 4166 repeals the whole of the existing game laws in force in Alaska, and sub­stitutes quasi protection for deer, moose and caribou which is so flimsy that its effect will be to place all Alaskan game wholly at the mercy of the residents of Alaska. The only restriction it proposes is that the hides, heads and meat of the three species mentioned above can not be shipped out of Alaska, except under a license costing bona fide residents$25.00 and non-residents $250.00 for two moose, deer and caribou. Any person living in Alaska may slaughter at will, in season and out of season, any or all of the quadrupeds, birds or fishes now remaining, until the last species is exterminated.
By the sportsmen and naturalists of the eastern United States, who desire the proper preserva­tion of the wild life of Alaska, Mr. Dillingham’s measure is considered outrageous, and is being opposed accordingly. The special advocates of Mr. Dillingham’s bill areLieutenant G. T. Emmons, of the United States Navy; M. L. Wash­burn, Superintendent of the Northern Commer­cial Company; Judge Charles S. Johnson, of Nome ; D. A. McKenzie and D. H. Jarvis. By these gentlemen the cry is raised that the present game law is a great hardship to the residents of Alaska, in general, and to the natives, in partic­ular. They assert that thus far the greatest destruction of game in Alaska has been at the hands of non-residents, who desire heads and antlers as trophies, or who wish to export skins and hides. It is even stated that the Indians kill game sparingly, whereas it is a well-known fact that when unrestrained, the Indians of Alaska destroy their own food supply of wild game in a manner that is almost beyond belief.
The following letter bearing upon this point has been forwarded to the President and to the Senate Committee on Territories:
317 West 56th Street,
New York City, Feb. 27, 1904.
. Madison Grant, Esq.,
Dear Sir:—In answer to your request I am writing to you a few details about the destruction of game in Alaska by the natives.
It seems that all the Indians have an over- whe.ming desire to destroy animal life, no matter what the nature of the animal is, be it either fish, flesh or fowl.
Whenever we were camped near a salmon stream, and my men wanted some amusement, they would gaff quantities of salmon and throw them upon the bank to die. When I remonstrated they simply answered, “ There are plenty more left/
While after mountain goats I met a party of three adult and two young Indians who were packing up portions of the carcasses of 16 goats that two of them had killed that morning. They had, however, killed more than 16 as I counted eighteen carcasses myself that I actually found. In a pile among some granite boulders I found three dead goats that were untouched, with the exception of one hind quarter that had been cut off.
The following day I found several more car­casses about a mile further on, that had been killed some time before, as they were much de­composed. These were killed in August, or even July.
While hunting on Admiralty Island I found the carcasses of several deer that had been killed and left untouched ; and it was always difficult to keep my men from shooting them whenever they saw them.
One Indian was sent to get one deer for some miners. In about two hours he came back with a deer slung over his shoulders, and said he had five more, mostly fawns and does, upon the mountainside. These could not possibly be used, as the weather was very warm. Another Indian whom I met in Yankee Cove wanted to join my party, and as a recommendation told me he had killed 54 caribou in one morning.
The moose, too, share in the same wasteful slaughter, and it is a singular fact that the larger he is and the finer his horns, the more pleasure they find in destroying him.
Another thing 1 would like to speak of is the destruction of caribou for the soldiers at such places as Ft. Eagle, and the posts along the Yukon. There the U. S. Government hires men to slaughter them by the hundred. One man I heard, and on very good authority, killed 1*29 animals in one day. Now it seems that this slaughtering might be done away with, as plenty of food can be brought there by steamer by way of the Yukon River and the White Horse R. R.
As I told you, I am going back to Alaska this summer, ana I will try to get the names of any people, Indians or Whites, whom I find killing animals needlessly.
Gouverneur Morris Phelps,
Apparently it is unknown to Messrs. Emmons, Johnson, Washburn, McKenzie and Jarvis that the Alaskan Game Law now in force permits the killing of wild animals for food by natives, explorers, miners, and travelers. In fact, its chief purpose is to prevent the extermination of the moose, caribou, mountain sheep and deer in a wholesale manner, and in brief time, for com­mercial purposes. The law does indeed prohibit the sale of fresh meat, hides and heads of the valuable animals mentioned above ; but a man who is in need of wild game food may kill it and consume it. In view of this, the present law works no hardship to the natives, nor to explorers, miners or overland travelers, actually in need of food. As usual, however, there are in Alaska, as elsewhere, men who oppose all game laws, who wish to kill without limit, who wish to realize the utmost profit by the sale of game, who would place caribou and moose on a level with pork in the mining camps, and who care not how soon all the big game of Alaska is exterminated. With such men, the true sportsmen, naturalists and lovers of wild life in this country are per­petually at war. The Dillingham bill is being strongly opposed by the New York Zoological Society, the Boone and Crockett Club, the League of American Sportsmen, the Camp-Fire Club, and kindred organizations. The Biological Survey of the Department of Agriculture is being urged to use all possible influence for the preservation of the existing game laws which are being administered through that Bureau.
Regarding the dangers threatening the wild life of Alaska, Mr. J. Alden Loring, formerly Field Agent of the New York Zoological Society in Alaska, has written the following letter, copies of which have been sent to the President and to the Senate Committee on Territories, which has before it the Dillingham bill:
Owego, N. Y., March 17, 1904. Mr. Madison Grant,
New York, N. Y,
Dear SIR:—In reply to your inquiry regarding the attitude of the natives of Alaska toward ame. as observed by me, and reported to me y reliable parties, 1 will say :
Game is being ruthlessly slaughtered by the inhabitants of Alaska. While on a trip to the Cook Inlet country of Alaska in the summer of 1901, I came near getting into trouble with my three Indians because I refused to allow them to shoot everything they saw. They claimed than they could not live on beans, rice, flour, bacot and coffee, but must have fresh meat; and they wanted meat to take back to their hungry families.
When we were about to leave the mountains, we came upon two yearling moose. I shot one and the Indians killed the other. No sooner had the animals fallen than my guide informed me that the Indians objected to packing the meat (piece by piece) a quarter mile over a level (but marshy) country to our boat. And these were the Indians who for weeks had begged me to allow them to kill meat for their hungry families! It is needless to say that after I gave them a dressing down all of the meat was saved.
A few days later a large bull moose was seen near camp. Although we had all the meat we could possibly carry, the Indians were anxious to
?;o after it. That same afternoon another bull orded the Knik River near us, and again the Indians would have killed it had I not interfered.
One of these Indians admitted that he had killed five moose the winter before, and had saved the meat of but one. When asked why he did not take the others, he replied that they “ were bulls, and tough.”
During the summer of 1889 one Indian killed fifty moose back of Tyonek. The North Ameri­can Company’s agent at Knik, gave the Indians an order for twenty-four head skins, from moose, and on a single windy day the order was filled, and little of the meat was saved.
My guide, Mr. H. H. Hicks whom I found, perfectly reliable, told me that the Indians were wanton destroyers of game, and Mr. J. L. Davis, of Kodiak, informed me that the natives at Afognak Island, and the adjoining main land, were in the habit of killing bear during a season when their skins were worthless, simply saving the intestines which are used to make waterproof garments.
I spent three days hunting on Admiralty Island where deer were once abundant. During our stay but one of our party of six saw a deer. I found a few tracks along the sandy beach and in the opens, but they appeared to be less common than I have found them in the Adirondacks.
Game laws or no game laws, the Cook Inlet Indians will have the same hardship-starvation story to tell every winter. It is the perpetual cry of the entire north land, from the western border of the plains to the Pacific coast, and this in a country where both large and small game mav be haa in abundance.
When I was in Alaska there was no ga?ne lawy but still I heard the hungry story from the time that I landed at Tyonek until I left the country. While none of the natives were in a state of actual starvation, they claimed to be in want of provisions and were constantly begging of me; yet whenever I took trips through the timber within three miles of the village, I found snow- shoe rabbits and Spruce grouse common. At Knik village, some eighty miles northeast, I heard the same stories, yet back of this place is where my Indian killed his five moose not four months before, and saved the meat of but one. Moose in abundance were to be found within fifteen miles of this village, yet the inhabitants were too lazy to go for them.
Of course it is harder to hunt in winter than in summer or fall, but there is really no need of an Indian stirring further from his cabin than is necessary to secure wood and water. If he chose, during the summer and fall he could lay in dried berries, dried or smoked fish, and moose, caribou or sheep meat enough to feed his entire family for a year, regardless of its size.
At Knik I saw the dogs patrolling the beach and mud flats at low tide, catching the fish that had been stranded or washed ashore, while their owners lay about their cabins, and begged credit from the traders.
I leave it to any fair-minded person if there is any excuse for anyone going hungry in a country where berries are abundant in summer, and where from the first of July until the middle of September, the salmon run up the streams in such numbers that fishermen are often obliged to release part of their catch before they can haul their seine ashore. Even the bears glut themselves to such an extent that they choose what to them is the choicest parts, eating only the head and belly. Candle nsh (small fish so fat that when dried they will burn) are so abundant that I have walked along the beach and picked up scores of them as they were washed up by the waves. My guide told me that he knew of places where at certain times of the year he could scoop up half a bucket full at a time.
At Skagway I saw both Indians and whites paddling about the bay through schools of fish (herring I think they were) and capturing them by means of long poles, having a row of sharp nails driven through one end at intervals of an inch or more. This pole was thrust into the wa­ter by a man seated in the bow of the boat, and by a sweeping motion it was drawn through the school of fish, which were so abundaht that each time from one to six aad eight were impaled on the spines and flipped into the boat. I saw bush­els of fish captured in this way. The water was black with them, and they scarcely moved when the steamers came in to the docks.
Lack of foresight and lack of energy are usu­ally responsible for the hardships endured by Indians. An Indian does not hunt because it is a pleasure. It is his way of working, his way of earning his living, and so long as there is meat in camp, so long will he postpone his labor. Even after it has been consumed, he does not attempt to replenish his larder until the pangs of hunger demand it. Then he starts out, and his family fast until his return. If perchance he is unsuc­cessful for a few days, or is further delayed by accident or storms, as is often the case, the period of hardship for those dependent on him is prolonged. Once he is among the game he does not hesitate to slaughter everything that he can, then he returns home with the choicest parts, and feasts until again compelled to hunt.
As summer draws near, you will hear him say : “ I am not going to be hungry next winter. Wait until the 4 salmon run/ I am going to kill aud dry fish enough to keep my family in food until the next season.” Poor fellow! He means it, but after 44 the salmon come ” and he has had his fill, he becomes lazy, forgets hunger, and next winter brings its same starvation story.
The stories of lack of food are seldom heard at the missions, where the influence of the mission­aries is felt, but from the Indians beyond their reach. The 44mission Indians” as a rule are in­dustrious. They freight for the whites, fish or work at the canneries, and lay by a winter’s sup­ply of dried meat and fish for themselves.
So I say that if the Alaska natives will dry an abundance of berries and fish, as soon as the sea­son opens, and in the fall dry the meat of the large game animals, which the law allows each man to kill, they will have food in plenty, and it will not take a man and his wife more than two weeks to do it, either. Then if they will put in part of the summer and fall trapping furs, mak­ing 44 eucla ” (dried fish for dog food, which is shipped north by the commercial companies) or fish tor or work at the canneries, the income will easily supply them with clothing and necessities. This applies to the Indians living along the Pa­cific, and within a belt one hundred miles wide from the coast, between Wrangel and the head of Cook Inlet.
From these remarks you must not‘think that I am attempting to prove that the natives are the only destroyers of animal life in Alaska. The miners and prospectors are better hunters and better shots than the Indians, and the havoc they can do is appalling. I could enumerate many in­stances where moose, and deer have been slaught­ered by them, but have spoken of Indians only, because an attempt is being made to prove that they do not kill wantonly, and that the present game laws are to blame for their going hungrv.
Respectfully,
J. Alden Loring.
In view of the lamentable destruction of wildlife that has taken place in the United States during recent years, it is surprising that the lessons of the past are yet to be learned by a large number of Americans. That men like Lieutenant Em­mons and Judge Johnson, of Nome, who have lived in Alaska, can openly and unblushingly advocate the passage of such a measure as the Dillingham bill, is enough to disappoint, even if not to discourage, the most ardent game protect, ionist; but, like John Paul Jones, when the surrender of the Bon Homme Richard was de­manded, the men who are opposing the Dilling­ham bill declare that they have 4,not yet begun to fight! ” The New York Zoological Society, in particular, is determined that in Alaska, the last stronghold of big game owned by the United States Government wherein hunting is possible the big game must and shall be protected. The Secretary of Agriculture is being urged to put forth all possible effort in the enforcement of the existing Game Law, on the basis which ho has hitherto pursued.
Boone and Crockett Club Records (Mss 738), Archives and Special Collections. Maureen and Mike Mansfield Library. University of Montana-Missoula.